Pleasurethey smilein response to the misfortunes of

pleasure—they smile—in response to the misfortunes of stereotypically competitive groups (e.g., investment bankers); however, this malicious
pleasure is reduced when you provide participants with counter-stereotypic information (e.g., “investment bankers are working with small companies to
help them weather the economic downturn). Competition between “us” and “them” can even distort our judgments of distance, making threatening out-

groups seem much closer than they really are. These distorted perceptions can serve to amplify intergroup discrimination: the more different and
distant “they” are, the easier it is to disrespect and harm them. Thus, not
all out-groups are treated the same: some elicit indifference whereas
others become targets of antipathy. Stereotypically threatening groups are especially likely to be targeted with violence, but those
stereotypes can be tempered
with
other info
rmation. If perceptions of intergroup relations can be changed,
individuals may overcome hostility toward perceived foes and become more responsive to one another’s grievances. The
flexible nature
of both group membership and intergroup relations offers reason to be
cautiously
optimistic
about the
potential for greater coop eration among groups in conflict
(be they black versus white or citizens versus police).
One strategy is
to bring multiple groups together around a common goal
. For example, during the fiercely contested
2008 Democratic presidential primary process, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama supporters gave more money to strangers who supported the same
primary candidate (compared to the rival candidate). Two months later, after the Democratic National Convention, the supporters of both candidates
coalesced around the party nominee—Barack Obama—and this bias disappeared. In fact, merely
creating a sense of
cohesion
between
two competitive groups can increase empathy for the suffering of our rivals
.
These
sorts of
strategies
can help
reduce aggression
toward hostile out-groups, which is
critical for creating more opportunities for constructive
dialogue addressing greater social injustices.
Of course, instilling a sense of common identity and cooperation
is extremely difficult in entrenched intergroup conflicts, but when it happens, the benefits are obvious. Consider how the community leaders in New
York City and Ferguson responded differently to protests against police brutality—in NYC political leaders expressed grief and concern over police
brutality and moved quickly to make policy changes in policing, whereas the leaders and police in Ferguson responded with high-tech military vehicles
and riot gear. In the first case, multiple groups came together with a common goal—to increase the safety of everyone in the community; in the latter
case, the actions of the police likely reinforced the “us” and “them” distinctions. Tragically, these types of conflicts continue to roil the country.
Understanding the psychology and neuroscience of social identity and intergroup relations cannot undo the effects of systemic racism and